AMD CPU and Platform Discussion: Ryzen Might Be...Good? *knocks on wood*

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > AMD CPU and Platform Discussion: Ryzen Might Be...Good? *knocks on wood*

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

Honestly I just want less hype and more real performance numbers. This Gulftown machine is showing its age.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2017 03:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:16

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

PerrineClostermann posted:

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331317&page_number=2

Apparently Zen cores are smaller than the competing Intel cores (I presume broadwell?)

It's not entirely clear if that's comparing the entire die including the iGPU. That said the more compact cache footprint suggests it might be excluding the GPU.

kirtar fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Feb 8, 2017

# ¿ Feb 8, 2017 15:51

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

Comatoast posted:

For a while AMD was really pumping their on-chip graphics solutions called APU. They were a solid bump up from Intels offerings, even on the lowest performance processors. Are the ryzen chips going to have solid graphics performance in the APU fashion? If I can get close to 1050 or 1050ti performance without having to power a graphics card then this will be a game changer.

From what I can tell the initial release will not have an iGPU (Summit Ridge). I am currently assuming that Raven Ridge (APU with Zen microarchitecture) should still retain a general advantage in iGPU performance, but it may not release in 1H.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2017 22:57

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

RyuHimora posted:

For those of you wondering about benchmarks, don't forget this video of a Ryzen Engineering Sample beating a non-limited 6900K in handbrake encoding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsVNQYwlSAo

~~Isn't video encoding basically embarrassingly parallel or am I getting confused with rendering?~~
Was confused with rendering

# ¿ Feb 9, 2017 21:30

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

TomR posted:

I know ya'll love some Linus up in here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rUndzpdo1I

Already posted here like an hour ago.

Gwaihir posted:

I've never really been able to talk myself in to buying based on "premium binning/overclocking ability" but I can and definitely have bought stuff for marginal feature bonuses/extra cores etc.

I'm the same way. I will generally get the lowest price option that has the cores/features that I want.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2017 16:38

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

Boiled Water posted:

I think it would be worth waiting until we know if it's a goldmine of megahurtz or a wet fart.

So in just over a week.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2017 16:41

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

Paul MaudDib posted:

It's still at least 25% higher IPC.

The 5820K is just as fast as the 6800K - just uses a little more power to do so. Actually since it overclocks so high it usually outperforms Broadwell-E despite slightly poorer IPC. There's a reason Intel decided to forget about Broadwell and press on with Skylake ASAP instead. In fact, IIRC they weren't even going to make socketed desktop processors until some enthusiasts got pissy, and they never did sell well.

What's the game? AMD undoubtedly picked something like AOTS or For Honor that scales super well with cores, there's no reason they wouldn't put their best foot forward. So that's almost certainly not looking at single-threaded performance, i.e. most games.

I'm just calling them like I see them here. If it ends up hitting 5 GHz then so much the better, but I think it's a valid interpretation here that Ryzen is pretty much clocked out from the factory, and this isn't my first time at the AMD launch rodeo, nor seeing the pre-order-before-the-NDA-lifts gimmick be played.

It's good that AMD is going to be competitive, but they are experts at doing this whole hype-train thing, and their fan-boys just want to believe so badly, and just eat that poo poo up. I firmly believe that a bunch of this stuff is going to get walked back a bit after launch - like when we start seeing how it plays in games that aren't cherry-picked thread-friendly games.

I'm sure we can all remember the pre-launch demos AMD gave of Fiji, where it was beating a 980 Ti or Titan X? And how when the reviews came in after launch it turned out not to be technically a lie, just they'd picked combinations of games and settings that nobody ever used that disadvantaged Maxwell and favored GCN? And how even 2 years later and even with AMD's vaunted FineWine� technology the Fury X still underperforms the 980 Ti in a lot of games?

(Seriously though, the FineWine� meme says everything you need to know about the AMD crowd. That's what happens when you don't upgrade your architecture for 4 years - you get driver improvements!)

Actually I'm pretty sure it's still in production? Newegg and other stores have it, and it still shows in the Ark as "launched", rather than "end-of-life" or whatever.

To me all that says is that literally dividing a 3DMark score by the number of cores tells you jack poo poo about individual core performance unless you 're comparing the same number of cores. If you take those numbers at face value, they tell you that the 6 core and 4 core variants have higher individual core performance than the 8-core despite being the same architecture and running at markedly lower clock speeds. The only straight comparison with similar clocks that doesn't involve handwaving the fact that multithreading isn't 100% efficient is to use the 1600X in this graph which indicates a ~~~10%~~4% difference in per core score between the 6800K and 1600X. There is also the quad core ryzen at 3.2 compared to kaby lake at over 4 GHz telling roughly similar story. That said, I've seen different values for the score of the 6800K floating around (e.g. the one from wccftech suggests lower score for the 6800K, but it's wccftech). In either case we'll find out when more rigorous reviews release.

kirtar fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Feb 23, 2017

# ¿ Feb 23, 2017 04:48

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

MaxxBot posted:

I pointed out earlier in the thread that is an awful, awful chart. Those numbers are just the numbers from the multithreaded physics benchmark divided by the number of CPU cores. It makes absolutely no sense to present the data like that because the benchmark does not scale linearly with additional cores.

It also appears to not scale perfectly with frequency either.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2017 05:48

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

Deuce posted:

If you're just playing games it's still the top performer out there and it's also not $500. Ryzen isn't going to wipe out every Intel chip overnight, anyone who thought it was going to do that is a dumbshit fanboy.

But if you're recording/streaming while playing then Ryzen just dramatically dropped your cost of entry. Intel has been charging "lol gently caress you there's nobody at this level" prices on their >4 core chips for a while now.

Now, what might still be useful is seeing how Ryzen... 5....? chips pan out. If they're like Intel and achieve better clockspeeds on the 4-core chips, we'll probably see a 4c/8t chip that is at least in the ballpark of the 7700k for substantially less money.

yet another edit: although the leaked/rumor prices for the lower end Ryzens weren't as dramatic as the Ryzen 7 set, and the leak prices turned out pretty accurate for those.

The 1600X (6/12) is supposedly ~$80 less than the 7700K. Even the 1700 is going to be listed for about the same (~$10 less) what the 7700K is selling for on amazon and newegg right now.
https://www.techpowerup.com/230916/pricing-of-entire-amd-ryzen-lineup-revealed (note prices of the top 3 SKUs were confirmed in the AMD presentation)

# ¿ Feb 23, 2017 05:57

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

White Rock posted:

1800X looks like a dud. What about the 1700? Having trouble finding benchmarks for it.

1700 or 1700X? In either case, I'm hoping that the extra threads will be useful for multiboxing spreadsheets in space.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 17:56

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

White Rock posted:

1700 sans X. I found a single video with had VERY favorable benchmarks compared to the 7700k. Still not beating it, but it paints a really good picture for the lower core ones coming later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5RP1CPpFVE

Also i have no idea if your serious but this one has an actual excel benchmark in which Ryzen smashes the competition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW1pzcdZxKc

Spreadsheets in space = EVE Online.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 18:11

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

buglord posted:

the reviews posted seem generally positive, but the this thread's reaction is lukewarm at absolute best but mostly "ehhhh", and the comments section of review websites have mental olympics performances by AMD fans. So my question is:

Are any of these 3 processors an instant pick when it comes to building a price:performance oriented gaming machine?

Absolutely not on the 1800X and 1700X since those would have to outperform the 7700K in gaming to be better price/performance. Most of the reviews have rightfully concluded that Ryzen 7 is not a good value for gaming alone, and I highly doubt that updated drivers/BIOS will change that.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 18:17

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

Dante80 posted:

This one is an outlier.

Yeah definitely. I'm trying to figure out if there's was something weird on the test setup that would cause this, but I'm drawing a blank. Both were using 16 GB DDR-4@3000MHz (no specification on latency) and a GTX 1080. Presumably at that resolution it shouldn't be GPU bottlenecked, but honestly the results make me think that they somehow made it so.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 18:22

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

So far the only one I remember seeing was on [H]

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 20:36

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild

K8.0 posted:

I don't believe this is true at this point. Benchmarks on a sterile test system show no real gain from 8c, but real world scenarios where you have something streaming on your second monitor, are streaming yourself, playing one game while sitting in queue for another, etc are all going to favor more cores than just a game needs. That and as we continue into the main era of this console generation, releases are going to be more and more optimized for the 6-7 cores those machines make available.

Arstechnica did a test on Dota2 + OBS, which did show a smaller FPS drop with OBS than the 7700K, but also lower average and 99th percentile FPS in both cases.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2017 22:35

kirtar: Sep 11, 2011; Strum in a harmonizing quartet
I want to cause a revolution

What can I do? My savage
nature is beyond wild